Category: Stamp Act

“Supreme Court Clarifies State’s Power to Levy Stamp Duty on Insurance Policies” Stamp Act, 1899 – Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 – Power to levy and collect stamp duty – The primary issues are the legislative competence of the State to levy stamp duty on insurance policies and the applicability of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 or the 1998 Act – LIC contends that the state lacks legislative competence to impose stamp duty on insurance policies and challenges the demand for stamp duty payment for policies issued using stamps purchased from Maharashtra – The State of Rajasthan argues that it has the power to collect stamp duty on insurance policies under Entry 44 of List III, as per the rate prescribed by the Parliament under Entry 91 of List I – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the High Court’s judgment, and affirmed the state’s power to levy stamp duty. However, it directed that the state shall not demand and collect the stamp duty as per the orders dated between 1993-94 and 2001-02 – The Court reasoned that the state has the legislative competence to impose and collect stamp duty on insurance policies, and the 1952 Act applies to the case – The Court analyzed the constitutional provisions and previous judgments to conclude that the state can impose stamp duty using rates prescribed by the Parliament – The Supreme Court concluded that while the state’s power to levy stamp duty is upheld, the specific demands for stamp duty payment in this case were set aside due to the circumstances presented.

2024 INSC 358 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri…

Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 – Section 9 – Refund of stamp duty paid for an increase in share capital – The Supreme Court examined whether Form No. 5 is an “instrument” under the Stamp Act and if the notice of increased share capital materially alters the Articles of Association, requiring fresh stamp duty – The Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that the Articles of Association are the only instruments liable for stamp duty and that the maximum cap applies as a one-time measure – The appellants were directed to refund the stamp duty with interest.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale,…

Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 35 – Contract Act 1872 – Section 2(g) – Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 8 and 11 – Arbitration – Enforceability of Unstamped Agreements – Unstamped Arbitration Agreements Not Void – Agreements which are not stamped or are inadequately stamped are inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act – Such agreements are not rendered void or void ab initio or unenforceable

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SEVEN JUDGE BENCH IN RE: INTERPLAY BETWEEN ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS UNDER THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 AND THE INDIAN STAMP ACT 1899 ( Before : Dr…

Stamp Act 1899 – Section 35 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65 – Unstamped document – Secondary evidence – If a document that is required to be stamped is not sufficiently stamped, then the position of law is well settled that a copy of such document as secondary evidence cannot be adduced

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIJAY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

HELD in the nature of the transaction, and what was actually sold by the Official Liquidator, plant and machinery, such as would answer the description of immovable property, must also be found part of the property for the purpose of the stamp duty and other charges as per law.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE SUB REGISTRAR, AMUDALAVALASA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S DANKUNI STEELS LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh…

Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 31, 32 and 47A – Adjudication of the stamp duty – When a sale deed is presented for registration, the registering authority must ascertain the correct market value of the property subject matter of the document on the date of execution of the document – Stamp duty is payable on the basis of such market value and not on the consideration mentioned in the document – Relevant market value is the one which prevails on the date of execution of the conveyance –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANTI BHUSHAN (D) THR. LR. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.